Texas
Texas Republicans who defied Gov. Greg Abbott on school vouchers face mounting primary attacks
Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.
Texas House Republicans who tanked Gov. Greg Abbott’s school voucher agenda last year are facing a growing onslaught in their primaries as his long-promised revenge tour reaches its final month.
A national pro-voucher group, the School Freedom Fund, is launching a $1.15 million TV ad blitz across eight primaries Wednesday, part of a major ramp-up by Abbott’s allies on the issue. Another pro-voucher outfit, AFC Victory Fund, endorsed 13 primary challengers Tuesday and has already sent out multiple mail pieces attacking incumbents. And Abbott himself is set to return to the campaign trial this week to stump for both pro-voucher incumbents — and challengers.
It all marks the long-telegraphed fallout from last year’s legislative sessions, when a group of House Republicans held firm against Abbott’s crusade for letting parents use taxpayers dollars to take their kids out of public schools. His effort came crashing down in November, when 21 House Republicans voted to strip a voucher program out of a wide-ranging education bill, House Bill 1.
Sixteen of those Republicans are now running for reelection, and most are being targeted by Abbott and allied groups. Most are also in the crosshairs of Attorney General Ken Paxton, who is separately working to unseat dozens of House Republicans who voted to impeach him last year.
The School Freedom Fund is an arm of the Club for the Growth, the national anti-tax group, and its new TV ad buy spans broadcast, cable and satellite across the eight districts. The buy targets Reps. Gary VanDeaver of New Boston, Travis Clardy of Nacogdoches, Ernest Bailes of Shepherd, Hugh Shine of Temple, DeWayne Burns of Cleburne, Glenn Rogers of Graford, Reggie Smith of Sherman and Steve Allison of San Antonio.
“Candidates need to realize they can’t claim to be conservative while simultaneously opposing school freedom and taking cash from radical education bureaucrats, and voters will hold them accountable on election day,” School Freedom Fund President David McIntosh said in a statement.
The messaging against the incumbents has been varied. One of School Freedom Fund’s ads specifically goes after Clardy for saying in a November TV interview that his district does not have a problem with “woke teachers.” The narrator then calls Clardy wrong and says the Nacogdoches school district “brought in a critical race theory specialist for curriculum training.”
Other attacks are casting the lawmakers’ votes against the voucher program as opposition to the other components of House Bill 1, including teacher pay raises and increased public school funding.
The advertising blitz is being overwhelmingly funded by one man: Jeff Yass, a Pennsylvania billionaire whose top issue is alternatives to public education. He has been a multimillion-dollar donor to the School Freedom Fund, AFC Victory Fund and — more recently — Abbott, cutting the governor a $6 million check in December.
The incumbents, who mostly laid low after casting their decisive votes in November, are increasingly speaking out against the attacks. Rogers said in a direct-to-camera video released Tuesday that he would not cow to the “out-of-state voucher lobby, which is pumping millions of dollars into Texas to kill public education.”
“I have something important to tell you: I can’t be bought, I can’t be bullied and I can’t be intimidated,” Rogers told voters. “I will only be your representative.”
State Rep. John Raney, the retiring College Station Republican who authored the amendment that removed the voucher proposal, sought to set the record straight in a newspaper op-ed published last week. He said House Bill 1 “undoubtedly would have passed the House” without vouchers if its author had not pulled it down after Raney’s amendment passed.
“Gov. Abbott took his ball and went home shifting his focus to retaliation at the polls,” Raney said. “Shame on you, Gov. Abbott.”
After an economic development trip to India, Abbott was set to return to the campaign trail Tuesday with a series of stops to boost mostly incumbents. But on Thursday, he is scheduled to visit Mineral Wells to rally with Rogers’ opponent, Mike Olcott, Abbott’s first known event for a challenger since early December.
One of the new ads from School Freedom Fund boosts Olcott, highlighting his support from the governor and U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz.
Abbott has also made known his anger with another anti-voucher House Republican, Rep. Drew Darby of San Angelo, whose campaign website falsely claimed Abbott’s endorsement up until recent days. Abbott’s campaign announced Monday it had sent Darby a cease-and-desist letter reminding Darby that Abbott has endorsed his challenger, Stormy Bradley — “a true conservative.”
Darby’s campaign has not responded to a request for comment.
AFC Victory Fund has also been getting more involved in primaries. It had already announced opposition to a dozen of the anti-voucher House Republicans before endorsing specific challengers to them Monday.
Its latest mail piece portrays the incumbents in a “Wanted” poster, saying they are being sought for “working against schools, teachers, parents, and kids.” The mailer says they not only denied school vouchers but also “$4,000 pay raises for teachers” and “over $97 million in funding for our local schools.”
The line of attack has put the incumbents on the defensive over the convoluted legislative process that surrounded Abbott’s last-ditch attempt at vouchers in November.
“The removal of the voucher proposal from the bill did not kill the teacher pay raise portion or the section eliminating the STAAR test or any other funding that was appropriately included in the bill or our conservative state budget that we passed this session,” Burns wrote in a Facebook post Thursday. “The bill, and ultimately, those other provisions died because the author killed the bill himself by not allowing it to proceed to a vote once the voucher spending was removed.”
We can’t wait to welcome you to downtown Austin Sept. 5-7 for the 2024 Texas Tribune Festival! Join us at Texas’ breakout politics and policy event as we dig into the 2024 elections, state and national politics, the state of democracy, and so much more.<br> <br> When tickets go on sale this spring, Tribune members will save big. Donate to join or renew today.
Texas
Questions surround QB Quinn Ewers as Texas faces must-win game against A&M
AUSTIN, Texas (KTRK) — The Texas Longhorns clinched a 10-win season over the weekend, thanks to the win over Kentucky.
There’s a constant conversation about QB-1 and whether he has what it takes to lead the Longhorns to a National Championship.
The Houston Chronicle’s Kirk Bohls joined Eyewitness News to analyze Quinn Ewers’ performance under center and preview the Lonestar Showdown.
Bohls said despite an ankle injury Ewers received in the game against Kentucky, he expects Ewers will be healthy enough to start for the Longhorns against Texas A&M on Saturday.
Despite a shaky performance against Vanderbilt and the loss to Georgia, Bohls argued that Ewers doesn’t get the respect his talent deserves. He has led the Longhorns to back-to-back 10-win seasons and a playoff appearance last season. This season, he’s thrown for over 2,000 yards with 23 touchdowns and six interceptions. Bohls said he’s among the top five quarterbacks the Longhorns have had.
Texas sits at the top in The Houston Chronicle’s SEC Power Rankings, but the upcoming Lonestar Showdown is a must-win.
The SEC Championship is on the line for the Longhorns and the Aggies.
Bohls said it will come down to whether Texas’ offensive weapons can break through a tough Aggie defensive line. He also predicted that Arch Manning could get playing time if Ewers isn’t at the top of his game.
You can watch the Lonestar Showdown on ABC13 on Saturday night. Kickoff is set for 6:30 p.m.
For updates on this story, follow Briana Conner on Facebook, X and Instagram.
Copyright © 2024 KTRK-TV. All Rights Reserved.
Texas
Texas vs. Texas A&M football picks: What the oddsmakers say
A classic college football rivalry returns after more than a decade and with plenty on the line as Texas visits Texas A&M on Saturday night. Here’s what the oddsmakers are predicting for the game.
Texas improved to 6-1 in SEC play and stayed atop the conference standings after knocking off Kentucky, and needs to win this game in order to earn a place against Georgia in the SEC title bout.
Likewise for the Aggies, but they’re coming off a four-overtime loss against Auburn that dropped the team to 8-3 overall and 5-2 in conference games.
What do the wiseguys expect as the Longhorns and Aggies meet this weekend?
Let’s check in with the early predictions for Texas vs. Texas A&M in this Week 14 college football game, according to the oddsmakers.
Texas is a 6 point favorite against Texas A&M, according to the updated lines posted to FanDuel Sportsbook.
The book set the total at 48.5 points for the game.
And it lists the moneyline odds for Texas at -230 and for Texas A&M at +195 to win outright.
Texas: -6 (-110)
Texas A&M +6 (-110)
Over 48.5 points: -110
Under 48.5 points: -110
Texas is 6-5 against the spread (54.6%) overall this season …
Texas A&M is 3-8 (27.3%) ATS in ‘24 …
Texas is 2-2 against the spread in road games …
Texas A&M is 2-5 ATS at home …
Texas is 1-4 against the spread in its last 5 games …
A&M is 2-6 ATS in its last 8 home games …
Texas is 4-1 against the spread in its last 5 games played in Week 14 …
The total went over in 5 of Texas A&M’s last 6 games …
The total went under in 6 of Texas’ last 7 games and 7 of its last 9 road games …
A&M is 3-10 ATS in its last 13 games on a Saturday …
A plurality of bettors expect the Longhorns will take care of the Aggies on the road, according to the spread consensus picks for the game.
Texas is getting 63 percent of bets to win the game and cover the narrow point spread.
The other 37 percent of wagers project Texas A&M will either win outright in an upset or keep the game under a touchdown margin in a loss.
The game’s implied score suggests a narrow victory for the Longhorns over the Aggies.
When taking the point spread and total into consideration, it’s implied that Texas will defeat Texas A&M by a projected score of 28 to 22.
Our early pick: Texas A&M +6 … Strange things can happen at Kyle Field under the lights, especially as this intense rivalry game is resurrected, and with so much on the line, so asking for a greater than touchdown margin might be too much, and this is a game the Aggies can outright win.
When: Sat., Nov. 30
Where: College Station, Tex.
Time: 6:30 p.m. Central
TV: ABC network
–
Game odds refresh periodically and are subject to change.
If you or someone you know has a gambling problem and wants help, please call 1-800-GAMBLER.
–
More college football from SI: Top 25 Rankings | Schedule | Teams
Follow College Football HQ: Bookmark | Rankings | Picks
Texas
Should States Like Texas Be Allowed to Grade Their Own Highway Homework? — Streetsblog USA
In late October, protestors in Houston watched as officials wheeled a trough out into the middle of St. Emanuel Street and each scooped out a ceremonial shovelful of sand.
The officials were ostensibly there for a symbolic groundbreaking for the North Houston Highway Improvement Project, which will widen or rebuild around 25 miles of Interstate 45 in the heart of Texas’s largest city. For the protesters, though, the bulldozers that loomed in the background of that photo-op were a very real threat of the harm soon to come to St. Emanuel Street, and the estimated 1,079 homes, 344 businesses, five places of worship and two schools that will be razed to make way for the highway.
“Half of that street is going to be gone,” added Erin Eriksen, an organizer with Stop TxDOT I-45. “Half of those businesses are going to be torn down. And TxDOT was basically thumbing its nose at these places that were going to be destroyed because of this project.”
According to official analyses, though, the destruction of St. Emanuel Street and so many like it isn’t enough of an “environmental impact” to justify canceling the I-45 project, even though it will dramatically exacerbate pollution, flooding, and inequality in the disproportionately low income communities of color through which the expansion will largely run.
And that’s probably because the Texas Department of Transportation wrote those official analyses itself.
‘A fox guarding a hen house”
Thanks to a little-known loophole in federal law known as the “NEPA assignment” program, DOTs from Texas and six other states — Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, Ohio, and Utah — are temporarily “assigned” the responsibility of conducting what are normally federally overseen environmental assessments (the states must reapply every five years when their authority expires. Texas’s authority expires this year, and members of the Texas Streets Coalition are urging advocates to comment on whether it should be rescinded before Dec. 9.)
In theory, NEPA assignment is supposed to help responsible state DOTs build projects quickly, without having to wait on a single understaffed federal agency to work through a backlog of proposals from across the country before giving the green light on simple repaving or repair. Some argue that it also gives environmentally progressive states an opportunity to conduct an even more thorough analysis than the feds would do on their own.
In car-dominated Texas, though, NEPA assignment is essentially a “fox-guarding-the-henhouse situation” — and its consequences shouldn’t be surprising to anyone, argues Heyden Black Walker of Reconnect Austin.
In Walker’s native Austin, for instance, advocates say that Texas DOT misleadingly “segmented” the expansion of a single intestate known as I-35 into three smaller projects along the exactly same road, hiding the staggering impacts the expansion would have for the region on the whole — and, advocates say, violating federal law. Walker says the “9,000 pages” of official documents about the project also didn’t adequately consider the highway’s impacts on air pollution, and failed to study whether railway investments could address the same problems the expansion was meant to solve.
That the I-35 expansion received even that degree of scrutiny, though, is something of an outlier.
Texas activists found that between 2015 and 2022, only six TxDOT projects receive a full-blown “environmental impact statement,” an exhaustive process that details exactly how the agency will mitigate the harm it will cause. A staggering 130 projects, by comparison, only received a far-simpler “environmental assessment,” all of which resulted in a “finding of no significant impact,” or FONSI, which is pronounced like the shark-jumping character on “Happy Days.”
Cumulatively, though, those “insignificant” projects displaced a stunning total of 477 homes and 376 businesses, and consumed $24 billion. And advocates say that lack of oversight is particularly damning for a state that would rank eighth in the world for carbon dioxide emissions if it were a country, and that polluted nearly twice as much as second-ranked California in 2019.
“The things that NEPA was intended to protect us from — from inordinate displacement, from worse air quality — Texas is failing on all of those metrics,” said Peter Eccles, director of policy and planning at LINK Houston, a transportation advocacy group. “Since TxDOT entered NEPA assignment in 2014, displacements have skyrocketed across Texas, dwarfing the national average in terms of how many households are displaced for freeway projects, as well as the number of counties that are no longer in attainment for criteria pollutants. … It’s not working as intended.”
If the federal government was conducting the NEPA process, advocates argue that Texas might face stricter parameters for what constitutes a “significant” impact of a highway project, rather than letting the state write off families losing their homes and residents getting sick as unfortunate but necessary evils. And maybe, bad projects might even be stopped before they start.
“TxDOT is setting up its own environmental reviews, setting its own parameters, and then self-grading its own performance by the parameters that it sets,” said Bobby Levinski, an attorney with the Save Our Springs Alliance. “And we don’t have that federal oversight that used to exist where, if you did have a disagreement over what the current state of the science is, [you might have] a technical expert at the federal level who could say, ‘No, you didn’t quite do a good enough job looking at, say, this air quality aspect.’
“That check no longer exists,” he continued. “And at the end of the day, they’re going to give themselves an ‘A.’”
NEPA Assignment Under Trump
Levinski and the rest of the coalition acknowledge that some might be wary of handing environmental power back to the federal government — especially with Trump returning to the White House.
Project 2025, which many believe will serve as the incoming president’s playbook, promises to restore regulations limiting environmental review that Trump put in place the last time he was in office, as well as “frame the new regulations to limit the scope for judicial review of agency NEPA analysis and judicial remedies.”
Advocates in Texas, though, say they’re already living in a world where NEPA has been badly watered down — and because of their state’s special authority, Washington was powerless to intervene. Restoring federal oversight, they argue, is a critical first step to making things right, followed by voting in a presidential administration that takes NEPA seriously.
“Here in Texas, we’ve been facing basically a mini-Trump administration, anyway, with our governor,” said Katy Atkiss, facilitator for the Texas Streets Coalition, referring to Gov. Greg Abbott. “He appoints the Texas Transportation Commission, which is basically five old white men — none with transportation experience. So I feel like we’ve been working in a similar environment anyway. We’ve had several conversations with DOT and other federal representatives throughout the course of of the year, and while they are extremely sympathetic, basically, they said, ‘We believe you, but there’s nothing we can do.’”
Until Texas’s NEPA assignment is revoked, all advocates can do is sue to stop bad projects — though with the president picking many of the judges, that’s an increasingly bleak prospect, too.
“With Trump being in office, the courts aren’t getting easier either,” added Levinski. “[And] making the public be the enforcer of NEPA, I think, puts a big onus on the residents of Texas to go up against the giant Goliath that is TxDOT on every single case. … We need some sort of measure of oversight. You can’t just write off the entire state of Texas.”
The members of the Texas Streets coalition acknowledge that getting their state’s NEPA assignment revoked won’t be easy — and if it can’t be done, they hope USDOT will at least make some common-sense changes.
The state might still be allowed do its own environmental assessments, but not on massive highway projects that displace hundreds of residents. The feds also might force the DOT to wait at least 30 days to collect public comment after they make changes to their plans, or submit to “an annual NEPA compliance audit” to ensure they’re not flouting federal laws. At a minimum, they could acknowledge that granting states like Texas the ability to do their own environmental review even as they’re suing to hide their greenhouse gas emissions from the public seems like a pretty obvious flaw in the system.
At the end of the day, though, advocates say we need to address the shortcomings of NEPA itself, which still doesn’t factor in the power of induced demand — and still offers all states too many opportunities to build destructive highways, even when the federal government is grading their projects.
“I think that NEPA assignment and its abuses by TxDOT are a symptom of the larger failings of NEPA as a whole,” added Eccles. “NEPA was very well intentioned at the time [it was written], but certain states like TxDOT have gotten very good at gaming it to rubber stamp projects that they want to do regardless. Contrast that with the NEPA burden that the Federal Transit Administration puts on transit projects; it’s much more rigorous, and it ends up slowing down those projects significantly. We need to have a clearer picture of what projects benefit the environment and which projects harm it.”
-
Business1 week ago
Column: Molly White's message for journalists going freelance — be ready for the pitfalls
-
Science6 days ago
Trump nominates Dr. Oz to head Medicare and Medicaid and help take on 'illness industrial complex'
-
Politics1 week ago
Trump taps FCC member Brendan Carr to lead agency: 'Warrior for Free Speech'
-
Technology1 week ago
Inside Elon Musk’s messy breakup with OpenAI
-
Lifestyle1 week ago
Some in the U.S. farm industry are alarmed by Trump's embrace of RFK Jr. and tariffs
-
World1 week ago
Protesters in Slovakia rally against Robert Fico’s populist government
-
Health3 days ago
Holiday gatherings can lead to stress eating: Try these 5 tips to control it
-
News1 week ago
They disagree about a lot, but these singers figure out how to stay in harmony